Posted
by
timothy
on Friday June 04, 2010 @06:03PM
from the got-one-on-my-swiss-army-knife dept.

An anonymous reader writes, snipping from a story at NPR: "'How did the Consumer Products Safety Commission find out that cadmium, a toxic metal, was present on millions of Shrek drinking glasses now being recalled by McDonald's? Well, an anonymous person with access to some pretty slick testing equipment tipped off Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) about the problem. Her office confirmed that somebody using a Thermo Electron Niton XRF testing gun found a lot of cadmium, sometimes used in yellow pigments, on the surface of the glasses. The source overnighted glasses to Speier's office last week, which then turned over the test results and specimens to the CPSC. ... By law, no more than 75 parts per million of cadmium is supposed to be present in paint on kids toys. Speier's office said the amount found on the glasses was quite a bit higher than that.' Seems like the answer to a previous question about at-home science — this blogger seems to have been one of the anonymous sources."

I'm still waiting for them to include nuclear particle accelerators [wikipedia.org]. Imagine what fun these would be at parties.:) They'd be so much more exciting that cadmium laced drinking glasses with silly cartoons painted on them.

feeding them shit for food and turning them into future fatasses
Our food is only 5% shit by weight, and it takes more than just food to turn them into greasy, overweight nerds - specifically, you need WOW and a good internet connection.

a stupid clown and a dinky playground
Yeah? Let's see your clown and playground! From what your girlfriend says, you're the clown, and calling your "playground" dinky would be a compliment.

Whats a few thousand $ to a middle class US family?
Blogs and news reports have talked of this device and anyone can learn to use it.
From hand held testing in a scrap yards to suburbia - equipment is now much cheaper.
The gov is not testing, the companies dance around 'limits' and law makers set few binding targets.

I have access to one of these via my wife, who is using one to do research on soil metals for her Phd. I have to ask nicely to get access, because it has a radioactive source of ionizing radiation in it, but I could get it if I was really curious. The things are so handy, theyre more prevalent than you might think.

This isn't an argument supporting the validity of "home labs." Those handheld XRFs are about $30K. I'd love to have one in MY home lab, where the most expensive equipment is a $300 distillation kit that I had to save for six months to justify.

No, but you can get 220 from two different outlets, if they are on different circuits and you have 3 phase wiring to your building. You need to make a really nasty "Y" shaped extension cord thingy and plug two ends of the Y into different sockets... probably not OSHA approved.

But, what the hell, you wouldn't make such a thing if you didn't want a 220 outlet in a building only wired for 110, right?:-)

I am sure you are right. I stand corrected and will stick to software... all I know is my 240V twist lock plug can power the server rack. (Don't worry I am nowhere near overloading it, and my smoke detectors will work just fine for the week it needs to be here.)

No, I had to ask my neighbor, whose former roommate's sister's last boyfriend knew a guy at the power company who could get him a manual on how do it by wiring your own transformer using 13 feet of copper pipe, a few steel rods, some scavenged copper wire, and duct tape.

It's more complicated than that. There are two types of Niton XRFs. The most common type which has been around for a while use a radioactive source (ironically Cd109). The the sources have a fairly short half life so must be replaced every other year or so, and cost thousands of dollars. These sources are VERY strictly regulated requiring licensing at the state level and access to inspectors. There are storage and transport requirements, etc. Most likely the person is an environmental consultant (like

I got to play with the first kind. The serial port for uploading the data is a bitch sometimes, as is the software which I think isnt meant to run on Vista. On the other hand, the results for Lead and Manganese are suprisingly accurate compared to ICP, from what I understand from my scientist wife. (I only do the interfacing, she does the science).

Makes me want to borrow it and go on a sampling rampage of everyday imported goods with paint on them.

What naturally occurring substance has the highest known melting point? Answer: Cadmium?
Tungsten? And I didn't bother to RTFA(big surprise, this is/.), but is the cadmium part of the paint or of the glass matrix itself? If in the paint that's a problem. If in the glass matrix, unless you frequently serve your guests hydrofluoric acid at which point the HF leaching calcium out of their blood will kill them long before the Cd does, it's not so much of a problem.

I sometimes use it to analyze soil samples in the field. Since you aren't necessarily shooting a homogeneous substance, you sometimes get results that don't reflect the overall concentration. To get meaningful data you have to send it to a fixed lab where they will extract it and get an analytical result that is more likely to reflect the real concentration.

I sometimes use it to analyze soil samples in the field. Since you aren't necessarily shooting a homogeneous substance, you sometimes get results that don't reflect the overall concentration. To get meaningful data you have to send it to a fixed lab where they will extract it and get an analytical result that is more likely to reflect the real concentration.

Actually, XRFs are commonly used by industrial hygienists to determine concentrations of lead (Pb) in lead paint. In fact, the new renovation, repair and paint (RRP) law that went into effect on April 22 assumes lead is in paint on homes built before 1981, unless the paint is measured to be less than 0.5% lead. The best way to do so (per EPA) is to use an XRF to determine whether lead is present or not, and what its concentration is. Alternatively, paint chips can be analyzed for lead in a laboratory; however, one can obtain 200-300 measurements for lead in a building with an XRF, whereas one may take 10-20 paint chip samples in the same time. What I'm guessing happened is than an IH used an XRF on a glass that his/her kid brought home from McDonalds and found some aberrant spectra - the IH took those readings further, and found the spectra matched cadmium. He/She then sent the glass with the readings to the Congresswoman. Given that cadmium has been substituted for lead in kid's toys, etc. (which was prohibited by law), and cadmium is considerably more toxic than lead, the Congresswoman had the glass tested, and the recall began.

That really depends on the area illuminated by the X-rays -- usually somewhere between a square millimeter and a square centimeter. XRF only samples the surface, though, somewhere between a micron and a millimeter, so if your sample varies significantly from the surface down, you need to address that.

There are a lot of methods that can ameliorate this, especially if you take samples of the soil back to the lab and process them for grain size, etc.

Nevertheless, if you have a lot of experience with this, you might find a chat with my spouse interesting as she has done extensive analysis of the effectiveness of XRF vs ICP etc in her work of late, notably relating to lead and manganese. So far the Niton units stack up pretty well against ICP if the samples are processed well.

I mean, honestly, if you are going to poison your kid with McDonald's, what is a little bit more poisoning with cadmium. Ailments allegedly related to cadmium exposure is cancer, kidney problems and weakened bones. In high quantities. How high are the quantities going to be with kids licking the yellow paint off the glass, even if the paint chips I suspect the real risk is to with the glass.
The meal itself should be what parent worry about, especially if they eat there more than once a month Most of t

Those healthy things on the menu are primarily there for marketing purposes to placate the people that say MacDonalds is unhealthy (even if they never eat there). For the 2% of people eat the good stuff at MacDonalds, more power to them.

However, you can pretty much guarantee that nearly every kid that is taken to MacDonalds will not be eating off their healthy menu.

And from fermion's slashdot ID, I'd say that he (along with just about everyone else from that era) held that opinion well before "super size me

I know that people don' know history, so they think they have made up everything in the world. They think they made up sex. They don't know what came before, and really don't care.

Certain health and occupational risks have been known for quite a long time. For example, smoking was not just suddenly found dangerous in the 60's when the surgeon general of the US warned us that smoking would kill us, studies have been stacking up since the late 19 century. Likewise, the dangers of our industrial food sup

Yeah, but most of the time it's "company in <not china> has problems because <some plant in china> did some illegal shit". I don't think that many companies based out of china turn their manufacturing over to the US or other countries, is usually the other way around.

Just goes to show that the wonders of unregulated cutthroat profit-chasing capitalism are the same, whether in China or in US. It's just that it's easier to buy oneself out of regulation in China due to higher corruption. But there's no lack of desire to do the same on part of US companies...

While is truth to your statement that unfettered capitalism can result in problems, it is certainly clear that government oversight is not the solution. From my perspective, government regulation does not guarantee anything other than a lack of innovation, an increase in price, shortages, and lots of do-nothing patronage "jobs" for the well-connected. See MMS, SEC, US Post Office, etc.

I work in a highly regulated industry (medical devices) and I can tell you based on multiple decades of experience that t

Except that this shit IS regulated. Remember the hullabaloo over the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act [wikipedia.org] that was passed a while back after Mattel's screw-up with lead paint? Remember how all the free market advocates said that the law would adversely affect everything from small-time toymakers (who would be forced to pay for testing they couldn't afford on products that never come into contact with dangerous chemicals) to libraries (who, without an exemption that may or may not have gone through, wou

We don't know where all the components come from though. Perhaps the sand/whatever itself was contaminated, or one of the other additives. Or someone was just a dumbass and put cadmium in it for some reason.

How far down the rabbit hole do you go though? That's the harder question to answer.

T1 supplier: it's raw material, use it for whatever.T2 supplier: it's been processed somewhat. don't use it for foodstuffs etc.T3 supplier: here's this stuff we found cheap.T4 supplier: here's this stuff mixed with other stuff we found sorta cheap.T5 supplier: here's this glass-making stuff.Cup-maker: wtf, cadmium?-or-Cup-maker: herp-derp lets toss some cadmium in there

Sure. the blame may be at the end of the chain, but it might not either. It could be anywhere along the line. Somewhere, someone made a mistake... but was it an honest one?

"Arc International employs 12, 200 people worldwide including 8000 in France. The group, whose head office is located in Arques, in the French Pas-de-Calais region, achieved a turnover of 1 billion Euros in 2009. Armed with its know how in glassware, it developed globally and diversified its activities through the integration of materials other than glass.

I'd suspect small production runs and urgent items are produced locally (or relatively locally). Large low cost runs with plenty of lead time, like McDonalds would want, would likely be produced in China.

Mmmmm.. Fill the glass with bacon, fries, and fried burger squeezings. You don't have to worry about the cadmium, that's a heart attack in a glass. Oh, who am I kidding, pretty much anything at McD shortens your lifespan by about a year per serving.

Why is my chest feeling tight? And my right arm is starting to hurt. I must just be hungry, let me finish this ultramegasupersize Bigmac, and everything will be ok.

Oh please! It was trying to kiss the ass of the "make everything healthy!" nuts that ruined McDonald's in the first place! I'm sure many of the old timers remember when their fries were actually awesome, instead of tasting like heated cardboard. That was because they used to be dipped in sugar and fried in beef lard, not anymore! It's too unhealthy! so instead we get burgers that taste like bricks, and fries that taste like cardboard. Yum Yum!

It is FAST FOOD, it is SUPPOSED to be bad for you, okay? Want healthy go home and make a fricking salad. I swear if I ever win the lotto I'm gonna open a chain of restaurants called "McFatty's" with a slogan like "McFatty's, tell the health food nuts to kiss your ass!" and I bet it'll be a hit! It'll have nothing but big fat burgers, fried buns of course, and fries dipped in sugar and cooked in 100% beef lard! Hell I'll fry every damned thing on the menu, won't nothing be less than 1000 calories, I'll have them lined around the block! And I'll even have a smoking section just so I can piss off the anti-smokers as well!

If you're standing there, in the glass factory, and you've made 12 million glasses that need painted, do you even stop ask yourself if maybe the paint that you have, the stuff that was supposed to be shipped to the Dept. of Transportation for road-line painting, might not be a good choice for DRINKING glasses?

The fools that were charged with painting the glasses, regardless of where the glasses came from, were supposed to do so with drinking-glass COMPATIBLE paint. The law is quite clear on this subject, and for good reason. Its not too hard to figure out, man. Toxic Paint + Food-related product = BAD

What I would bet on is that this is simply another case of someone cutting corners/costs to pad their profits, at the expense of consumer safety.

My wife works as an architect on small retail projects. One client of hers made a trip to China and bought a container load of material to fit out their project. So an electrician drills into a partition, hits asbestos and shuts the site down.

They lost a lot of money trying to save money on partitions. The funny thing is that the partition in question had stickers on it saying absolutely no asbestos. I guess there had to be a reason for that.

Ah well I am an Australian and my wife is Malaysian. Most of her customers are asian and believe in always getting the Best Deal (tm). My mother in law needed a tooth removed and would have paid 500 AUD for the job so she flew to Malaysia (which she was going to do anyway) and got it done for ten bucks (our money). She doesn't need all that modern sterilisation and anaesthetics. Those things were obviously invented to trick smart people like her out of their savings.

In Malaysia once I saw this nice watch in a street market. We drove the price down from 50RM to 10RM. Then the vendor took the case apart to install a battery. I realised later that he just put the 10RM movement in. We weren't really bargaining, just choosing.

I am sure the warning was in Engrish. The shipment should have been flagged in customs, but its not hard to get lucky there, especially if the paperwork from china looks okay.

In some cases it isn't that way, though. My dad was working in Egypt for about 10 years and in at least some cases, he said the dentists there were at least equal to the best dentists he's ever had Stateside, but at a much lower price. I suppose you could take that to mean he's had terrible dentists over here, but in his experience they were often American trained and seemed to do a good job. Though there were some exceptions, the same as you'd have here (you find a good one, you keep going back, and if not

The standard deviation in ability and price varies from place to place, in line with the amount and strength of regulation. There are very good private hospitals in Malaysia and they charge a lot of money, but less than you would pay elsewhere. There are also very cheap places which cut corners. They exist because they are not subject to the level of regulation you would see in some other countries.

I don't doubt your point about dentists in Egypt and I am not trying to rubbish medical care in the third worl

The boring kind, or the fun kind with pictures of dead folks and Illuminati imagery? More specifically is the problem with corruption, not enough spot checks, too much import volume, or all of the above?

... so she flew to Malaysia (which she was going to do anyway) and got it done for ten bucks (our money)... Those things were obviously invented to trick smart people like her out of their savings.

Trick smart people? Huh?

According to this journal entry [nih.gov] written in 2007, the Malaysian government subsidised 98% of healthcare bills. It costed US$0.30 for an entire outpatient visit in a government clinic. I presume similar rates applied to dental treatment as well.

In Malaysia you do get that sterilisation and anaesthetics stuff. It really is cheaper, and at the low and mid-end I bet it's the same. Maybe the high-end stuff in Australia is better. But for the usual stuff, I doubt it.I have a dentist friend who moved from Malaysia to Australia, so I guess she gets to charge AUD prices now:). She certainly did have sterilisers for "everything".

As for the watch, did you actually see him put the cheap stuff in? I'd have thought they have the cheap movement in most of the

All the recalled jewelry was made in China. The drinking glasses are the first American-made products to be recalled.

[U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission spokesman] Wolfson said the recalled glasses have "far less cadmium" than the recalled jewelry. He would not say how much cadmium leached from the glasses in tests, only that it was "slightly above the protective level currently being developed by the agency."

Arc is a French company with a plant in New Jersey ; its origins as a glassmaker date to 1825. The company said that it has been making glasses for McDonald's for 15 years and that levels of cadmium used in the enamel baked into the glass were within current federal safety guidelines.

Biagi, Arc's vice president of North American sales, said the company was surprised and confused when it got word of the recall Thursday night.

I'm not sure why the product is being recalled based on CPSC standards that don't actually exist yet.I'm guessing it's because a Congresswoman got involved and everyone went into cover-your-ass mode.

They're recalling them in Canada, too, even though a rushed testing showed that everything is in compliance with local laws (so now there is fuss about updating the standards). Apparently, it was the decision of McDonalds itself, to deal with bad publicity surrounding this.

It used to be that public safety was the number one purpose and concern of the government. I guess poisoning children is less important now than making sure those with political power get bailed out. Children don't vote, after all. Well, except maybe in Chicago.

They probably missed it because it isn't above any established standard. The glasses were voluntarily recalled because a tougher standard may be pending.
CNN [cnn.com] has a poorly edited story about it.

You're right. We should expect the government to test every product made for children for sale in this country...for all known toxins...before they go on sale. Of course if it did then you'd complain about the Obama nanny state stealing your money with excessive income tax.

So what do we do instead? What are the systems in place to prevent... oh none. OK. So surely there is a system in place to punish... oh, no? OK, so we leave it to the courts? OH, the CEO and officers in the company can't be held liable in any way what so ever? So then what stops them from using a profit motive to justify poisoning people? Nothing. Well alright then, lets go ahead and just move along, nothing to see here.

You're right. We should expect the government to test every product made for children for sale in this country.

Yes, absolutely, and I say this as a leftie who considers Obama to be a populist corporate shill. The whole point of giving the government enough powers to run a social welfare state is so that it deals with problems like this.

for all known toxins.

We're not talking about some rare and exotic poison here, but rather some very basic stuff. It's not the first time it happens, either.

So, yeah, someone in the govt clearly didn't do their job while happily wasting taxpayers' money, and should be called out for that.

Do you have any idea how many products are sold in the US? Here's a hint: so many that there's no chance in hell of the government testing every single one. Problems like this are actually extremely rare, it'd be an enormous waste of resources if you even wanted to pretend it was feasible. Furthermore, more than likely no one was even harmed in THIS case. It's still obviously a failure on McD's part, and reasonable efforts to prevent this from happening again, but it's just not possible to prevent "bad

Do you have any idea how many products are sold in the US? Here's a hint: so many that there's no chance in hell of the government testing every single one.

You don't need to test every single thing ever sold. But food utensils? Come on, that's basic common sense that this kind of stuff comes right after food and drugs. Or what, would you prefer lead spoons next?

Oh, and the argument that "too many are sold" is fallacious in the first place. You simply don't allow to sell this kind of stuff without certification; if this means less variety because certification queue is full, it's not a big deal.

require the companies to test these things instead of having the government completely involved

Yes, because self-regulation works just ever-so-well. When Shrub changed the rules in Texas so that the companies voluntarily self-reported chemical spills the number of spills dropped by over 60 percent. He cited that as one of his great environmental success stories during the 2000 campaign.

when they slip up make them pay dearly.

Thirty years ago that idea might have worked, but with today's executive mobility the boss who orders tests falsified will be working for another company long before any fines are levied.

"Those people" constitute an empty set. You are vulnerable to inflation if you have any of the following "liquid" assets:

Cash in your wallet.

A checking or savings account.

A retirement fund.

An employer with any of the above or a payroll.

"The rich" don't care as much about inflation because they can move their investments to a more stable currency. This "capital flight [wikipedia.org]" devastated Latin America when much of the country's wealth left its fi

A government cannot get "unlimited funding through inflation." Our government can run budget deficits because people will keep loaning us money - i.e., buying Treasury securities. Post-WWII Germany, Zimbabwe, Argentina, and a bunch of other countries serve as good examples of why a government's budget is not helped by running the presses.

If fiat currencies suck because of inflation, representative currencies suck because of deflation. With representative currency there is by definition a fixed amount in